Funding for To the Contrary provided by Coming up on To the Contrary...

There's a lot at stake in this case as to whether Arizona joins other states that have criminalized abortion.

Whether we go back statewide to a near total ban going back to before Arizona was even a state.

(MUSIC) Hello, I'm Bonnie Erbe' Welcome to to the contrary, a weekly discussion of news and social trends from diverse perspectives.

The Supreme Court's Dobbs decision overturning Roe v Wade has thrown the abortion issue back to the states.

The reverberations continue to be felt across the country, and many states are still grappling with the issue.

One of those states, Arizona, is where the state Supreme Court will decide Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes the case, will decide whether prosecutors can enforce the state's 1864 near-total abortion ban.

Joining us today are one of the defendants.

Pima County attorney Laura Conover and one of the attorneys on the legal team.

Jill Herbig, co-founder of Public Rights Project.

All right.

First to you, Laura.

What's at stake in this case?

Well, thank you so much for having me.

I come to this position as the Pima County attorney, and effectively that's Southern Arizona's top law enforcement officer.

I'm the district attorney everywhere else in the nation.

To put it into context and what's at stake here in Arizona is the 14 months of confusion and chaos and lack of clarity that we have had in in my shop for my agency that poses to, in particular, significant problems we have seen in the last 14 months, a delay in the reporting of violent sexual assaults because victims don't know and are confused about what their opportunities and options will be in in getting proper medical care if there's an unwanted pregnancy after a sexual assault, they have to take care of themselves first.

They have to figure out if it's safe to seek an abortion.

And as the passage of time goes, so goes the evidence, depriving us of the ability to hold those accountable who are out committing violent crime, violent sexual assault.

That's the first area.

Let me clarify one thing.

You said you're the equivalent of a U.S. attorney nationwide.

I am the Pima County attorney.

Right.

Most states call it the district attorneys.

So I'm I know I'm a top prosecutor.

But will, when this case goes to the Arizona Supreme Court and they have a decision, will it affect other states no?

Yes, and I can explain that in that what is at stake here is a 1973 state wide reproductive health protection that was put into place while Roe v Wade was pending.

Then 50 years ago before the United States Supreme Court.

So what is at stake here is whether or not that stay of protection of protecting reproductive health stays in place and the legislature, which has spoken in giving reproductive health care up to 15 weeks, if that stays and carries the day or whether we go back statewide tied to a near total ban going back to before Arizona was even a state.

So there's a lot of talk in politics these days about the fact that the resurgence of resurgence of the religious right and the extreme and end of the Republican Party is going back to the Civil War era in terms of what the nation's rights are at stake.

And you have this very important case in terms of abortion rights.

And certainly what bothers me there, Bonnie, is that I represent all 1.1 million people living in Pima County.

This case is about everyone living in Arizona.

And if we go back to that civil war era law, women and people of color weren't even voting, didn't even have full voting rights.

And so we're going back to a law half the state wasn't even able to voice an opinion and it completely ignoring 50 years of activity at the Arizona state legislature, which which for us legally is is nonsensical.

Jill, tell me as the as the involved party here, what's at stake for you in this case?

Well, I think what we've seen, a public rights project we represent local government officials like Laura across the country who are working to advance civil rights, including abortion rights.

And what we've seen across the country is just a real dystopian return to criminalization of pregnancy and criminalization of abortion and a number of courageous prosecutors like Laura standing up and saying, this is not in the interests of public safety.

It is not in the interests of public safety to divert limited resources and a prosecutor's office to prosecuting women and their doctors for seeking health care instead of focusing resources on violent crime like sexual assault, homicide and other efforts that really directly affect their own constituents, health and safety and constituents are electing them for their judgment on cases like this.

And so this there's a lot at stake in this case as to whether Arizona joins other states that have criminalized abortion post Dobbs.

And we've seen what has happened in those states when that comes to pass.

We've seen in Texas just recently a woman had to go to court in order to receive life saving medical care.

When she received a fatal fetal diagnosis.

Her baby was not going to survive regardless, and she was facing really serious pregnancy complications.

And so instead of taking care of herself and her doctor being able to take care of herself, she had to go to court and litigate her right to receive health care.

And so those are the stakes for us in Arizona and why we're really proud to stand with Laura and with other courageous officials across the country who say this is not the way to go as a country.

There's been, of course, a huge backlash at the polls in voting issues across the country since Dobbs was decided handed down by the Supreme Court.

And Arizona is a purple state.

So do you think that this the politics, American politics and how it's changed will influence your Supreme Court in its decision?

Bonnie, it's going to be hard to predict how the court will will rule here.

And I want to make clear that we're giving them the time and space to to make a discernment on on how they will rule.

But what I can say from someone who's out in the community is that it's very clear in Arizona that polls show 80 sometimes as high as 90% of Arizonans do not want to see reproductive health care criminalized.

But that being said, and until and if we we have that until, until and unless we have that protection, it's putting everyone from prosecutors like myself to law enforcement to doctors to lawyers in in in an unclear unfair situation where where they lack notice about what's what's lawful and what's not.

And again, we're talking about when every moment counts.

It is not uncommon that patients will come in through the emergency room in an absolutely dire situation.

And the last thing we want is for a doctor to instead of using their own expertise, their experience, their direct observation of their patient, and making that emergency decision to act.

They are forced to wait for legal to weigh in.

I went to law school and there's a saying, you know, not to decide is to decide, meaning delay is the same thing as not deciding a case in certain instances.

What is that delay setting up in terms of women who are pregnant with either like the Texas case, a fetus that is going not going to be born alive?

And what does the delay cause in terms of, you know, women's health?

Are women dying because they're not being able to get abortions and other impacts?

Tell me other impacts of this case.

And waiting a long time for a decision in Arizona and affecting women's health rights in Arizona.

I think it's important to note that in Arizona, currently abortion is legal.

Women can receive abortions up to 15 weeks, and after 15 weeks they can receive abortions for medical emergencies.

And so this is really important for folks to know that currently in Arizona, abortion is still legal.

And what we're trying to do in this case is ask the state Supreme Court to preserve that status quo that Arizonans have had for 50 years and not return us to 1864 when black people were 3/5 of a person under U.S. law and women could not vote.

And so that's what we're asking, is to preserve the status quo.

But I do think to Laura's point, even though that is the current state of the law, there is so much confusion, not just in Arizona, but across the country, in states where this litigation drags on about the fate of old state criminal abortion bans.

And that really compromises care for people who are in the middle of a pregnancy.

And so that's why we're asking the court to move as swiftly as possible and really clarify once and for all the state of Arizona law for everyone.

Tell me, either one of you how this case found itself at the center of the abortion debate in Arizona.

Well, it was a fascinating turn of events from the legal perspective.

We will recall all that the Dobbs decision, the opinion leaked.

Right.

There was a draft opinion and it leaked out, which did afford us some time for emergency legal analysis, realizing that it looked most certain that Roe would fall.

And what we found immediately was this stay of protection that existed in Pima County Superior Court from 1973, where my predecessor and where the attorney general at that time were fighting for the right to continue to criminalize and prosecute reproductive health care.

And because Roe versus Wade was making its way up to the Supreme Court, the Arizona courts eventually put in a stay of protection for a number of named physicians represented at the time by Planned Parenthood of Tucson, so named it saying that they needed clarity that Roe versus Wade could could could turn in favor of reproductive health care and safety.

And so those physicians should have a clear knowledge to go ahead and continue to provide care so that 1973 court order was still in place when then-Attorney General Brnovich immediately came into court arguing that because of the Dobbs decision and because Roe had fallen, the court should simply return all the way back to in 1864 near total ban.

You're talking about two different cases, but did two different things in terms of abortion law.

There was one in the Civil War era, 1864 the ban to completely and what happened in 1973, about 100 years later, 110 years later.

Well, going back to 1864, Arizona is not even yet a state.

Not even close.

And they adopted regulations as a territory which was a near total abortion ban.

We fast forward to 1973 when a group of physicians in Tucson went to court, represented at the time by then so-called Planned Parenthood of Tucson.

And they said, Judge, we are physicians, we are we are providing health care.

We are put in a position at times when it is appropriate and necessary to perform reproductive health care, to perform a court to perform an abortion.

And, Judge, there is a big case called Roe versus Wade making its way to the United States Supreme Court.

During this time, Judge gave us a protection, protect us from criminal prosecution of abortion in case the Roe versus Wade decision goes our way and says that what we are doing is, in fact, lawful, Give us that protection.

They won that argument in 1973, which provided a protection for reproductive health care statewide and was still in place when Dobbs was decided.

Returning the question to the states.

There's also been controversy over one of the judges who has been pulled off this case.

Tell us about that.

I want to be clear that that we we have made it very clear that we are allowing the court to engage in its own discernment about how to handle this, these legal arguments and how to reach their opinion.

There was a motion by some other party to have one of the justices recuse himself.

He initially said he would stay on the case, but in fact did eventually recuse himself under his own analysis.

Jill, do you have anything to add to that?

No.

I think one piece of context just to add for for listeners and I think this is something because Roe versus Wade was the law of the land for 50 years in America, that I think it's easy to forget that we've now gone back to the state of play in the 1970s and before, where now abortion is often a criminal justice issue.

And so that places prosecutors front and center of these debates now about abortion, which hasn't been true for 50 years.

And so I think it's just context to think about what we're potentially going back to in Arizona and what we've already gone back to in a number of states across the country where prosecutor is now have to make an impossible decision about whether health care is criminal.

And so this is this is the kind of case percolating in states across the country and that we had as a kind of criminal justice relevant litigation back in the 1970s.

People may not remember, but Roe versus Wade Wade was a county prosecutor because he was the person in charge of criminally enforcing abortion bans.

And so we're just now in a state of play where prosecutors are front and center for these debates, and there are dire consequences for people.

And Bonnie, if I if I may, Jill makes such a brilliant point there.

And as as an elected official, as a prosecutor, I should be worried about equal protection.

And this is what I mean by that.

First and foremost, I shouldn't be making health care decisions, period.

And whether I'm criminal, I'm filing criminal charges here or there, I shouldn't even be in this realm.

But I'm forced to be here now because of the Dobbs decision.

And when I say equal protection, I'm very concerned that in the state of Arizona, given the police chief and the sheriff and the mayor and my my statements during the last 14 months, reproductive health care remained available these last 14 months in southern Arizona.

But in northern Arizona, it's stopped on and off, out of very serious concern that prosecutors would, in fact, start filing criminal charges against health care providers.

And then what's more, those who can afford to do so can leave and safely go get the health care they desperately need in another state.

And those who can't afford it are trapped here.

These are the untenable and unacceptable consequences within a state and across the nation.

Now, Arizona, as a western state, western states were some of the first to grant women the right to vote and the right to run for office.

The first female member of the U.S. House of Representatives was from Montana or Wyoming.

I'm sorry, I forget exactly which state, but I remember passing her statue many times and in Statuary Hall in the on Capitol Hill, where when I used to cover the Congress, I would think that there would be a forward looking approach by Arizona voters in terms of freedom, the freedom to do with your body what you want to do with your body.

There are also they apply it in different ways, a majority of Arizonans also want the freedom to buy as many guns as they want, but they are the the Western ethic has been, Get your laws off my body.

Is that still the case?

Jill, could you start?

Yes, I think it's a really important point that these laws are not consistent with the will of voters in virtually any state, including in Arizona.

The vast majority of Arizonans don't want to criminalize abortion.

They may have varying personal opinions about the morality of support of abortion, but this is not a partisan issue.

This is a very strong majority issue for the majority of Arizonans and even the majority of Americans that criminalizing abortion is not a good stance.

That's why these laws are really so far out of step with the will of voters across the country and why we've seen every single time a direct ballot measure is put to voters since Dobbs has passed.

Every single time voters have voted for greater abortion protections, including Republicans.

So this is not a partisan issue.

This is an issue of liberty and bodily autonomy versus an extreme minority that has that has entrenched power in certain areas to the detriment of women's health.

With that, whichever way this this case is decided in Arizona, do you see it being appealed to the Supreme Court?

Well, I think certainly no matter what happens, we're going to be looking at all of our options for appeal, making sure that we're that we get the best outcome that we can, because public health is public safety and public safety is public health.

There's also a voter initiative drive in Arizona to try to get a constitutional reproductive health protection onto the ballot, or they're going to need an extraordinary number of signatures.

But it's but but I think it's going to show the will of the people.

Bonnie, you're absolutely correct.

In Arizona, people do not want the government in the bedroom between two private, consenting adults in Arizona.

People do not want the government in an emergency room interfering between a physician and a patient in crisis.

And the polls are are clear on that.

And critically, the Arizona state legislature, almost always dominated by the Republican Party, has weighed in on abortion in the last 50 years and provided safe reproductive health care up to 15 weeks.

And they said that again just months before the Dobbs decision.

Well, now that's constituted now.

Would that still be the case.

If if the Arizona Supreme Court rules in favor of the arguments before it, 15 weeks protection will, will continue on.

And that's our argument.

In agreement Jill?

Yeah, I think that's ah, that's our argument to the Arizona Supreme Court that the law is actually pretty straightforward here.

And what intervenors are trying to do is really ignore 50 years of legal precedent in Arizona and bring us back to the Civil War era.

And our argument is that's not how the Arizona state law works there.

The legislature has weighed in over the last 50 years many times, and the state Supreme Court should follow that precedent and keep the status quo of abortion care, at least up to 6 to 15 weeks.

Excuse me, with emergency care available after that.

And then hopefully the next year, the voters will have a chance to weigh in on even broader protections for abortion rights.

Jill, you mentioned earlier and I'd like to close out on this, that that all the state laws that have passed overwhelmingly in favor of abortion rights, Ohio and the and the elections, Ohio, most recently Kansas, etc., do you think I know that Laura can't talk about this, but do you believe that the judges on the Arizona Supreme Court will be influenced by public opinion?

And in the past, I'm not sure about this Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court.

But in the past, the court has been extremely sensitive.

Like Chief Justice Roberts does not want it to look like a bunch of political hacks, which is what they look like with the Dobbs decision.

So is there that same sentiment?

Will it be paid attention to by the justices of the Arizona Supreme Court?

Well, I think we can never be sure what influences individual justices is they're humans just like anyone else.

But I think what is good for our position and for the position of folks in favor of abortion rights is that we don't even need the justices to be influenced by public opinion here.

We only need them to be influenced by Arizona State law.

And so that's why we've argued to the Supreme Court that the law is actually pretty straightforward here, that abortion should remain legal up to 15 weeks in Arizona.

And we hope that's what they'll decide.

Thank you both for this very illuminating conversation.

And let's keep this conversation going on all our social media platforms and visit our website pbs.org- slash- to the contrary.

and whether you agree or think To the Contrary and whether you agree or think To the Contrary See you next week.

(MUSIC) Funding for To the contrary provided by the You're watching PBS.

Funding for To the Contrary provided by Coming up on To the Contrary...

There's a lot at stake in this case as to whether Arizona joins other states that have criminalized abortion.

Whether we go back statewide to a near total ban going back to before Arizona was even a state.

(MUSIC) Hello, I'm Bonnie Erbe' Welcome to to the contrary, a weekly discussion of news and social trends from diverse perspectives.

The Supreme Court's Dobbs decision overturning Roe v Wade has thrown the abortion issue back to the states.

The reverberations continue to be felt across the country, and many states are still grappling with the issue.

One of those states, Arizona, is where the state Supreme Court will decide Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes the case, will decide whether prosecutors can enforce the state's 1864 near-total abortion ban.

Joining us today are one of the defendants.

Pima County attorney Laura Conover and one of the attorneys on the legal team.

Jill Herbig, co-founder of Public Rights Project.

All right.

First to you, Laura.

What's at stake in this case?

Well, thank you so much for having me.

I come to this position as the Pima County attorney, and effectively that's Southern Arizona's top law enforcement officer.

I'm the district attorney everywhere else in the nation.

To put it into context and what's at stake here in Arizona is the 14 months of confusion and chaos and lack of clarity that we have had in in my shop for my agency that poses to, in particular, significant problems we have seen in the last 14 months, a delay in the reporting of violent sexual assaults because victims don't know and are confused about what their opportunities and options will be in in getting proper medical care if there's an unwanted pregnancy after a sexual assault, they have to take care of themselves first.

They have to figure out if it's safe to seek an abortion.

And as the passage of time goes, so goes the evidence, depriving us of the ability to hold those accountable who are out committing violent crime, violent sexual assault.

That's the first area.

Let me clarify one thing.

You said you're the equivalent of a U.S. attorney nationwide.

I am the Pima County attorney.

Right.

Most states call it the district attorneys.

So I'm I know I'm a top prosecutor.

But will, when this case goes to the Arizona Supreme Court and they have a decision, will it affect other states no?

Yes, and I can explain that in that what is at stake here is a 1973 state wide reproductive health protection that was put into place while Roe v Wade was pending.

Then 50 years ago before the United States Supreme Court.

So what is at stake here is whether or not that stay of protection of protecting reproductive health stays in place and the legislature, which has spoken in giving reproductive health care up to 15 weeks, if that stays and carries the day or whether we go back statewide tied to a near total ban going back to before Arizona was even a state.

So there's a lot of talk in politics these days about the fact that the resurgence of resurgence of the religious right and the extreme and end of the Republican Party is going back to the Civil War era in terms of what the nation's rights are at stake.

And you have this very important case in terms of abortion rights.

And certainly what bothers me there, Bonnie, is that I represent all 1.1 million people living in Pima County.

This case is about everyone living in Arizona.

And if we go back to that civil war era law, women and people of color weren't even voting, didn't even have full voting rights.

And so we're going back to a law half the state wasn't even able to voice an opinion and it completely ignoring 50 years of activity at the Arizona state legislature, which which for us legally is is nonsensical.

Jill, tell me as the as the involved party here, what's at stake for you in this case?

Well, I think what we've seen, a public rights project we represent local government officials like Laura across the country who are working to advance civil rights, including abortion rights.

And what we've seen across the country is just a real dystopian return to criminalization of pregnancy and criminalization of abortion and a number of courageous prosecutors like Laura standing up and saying, this is not in the interests of public safety.

It is not in the interests of public safety to divert limited resources and a prosecutor's office to prosecuting women and their doctors for seeking health care instead of focusing resources on violent crime like sexual assault, homicide and other efforts that really directly affect their own constituents, health and safety and constituents are electing them for their judgment on cases like this.

And so this there's a lot at stake in this case as to whether Arizona joins other states that have criminalized abortion post Dobbs.

And we've seen what has happened in those states when that comes to pass.

We've seen in Texas just recently a woman had to go to court in order to receive life saving medical care.

When she received a fatal fetal diagnosis.

Her baby was not going to survive regardless, and she was facing really serious pregnancy complications.

And so instead of taking care of herself and her doctor being able to take care of herself, she had to go to court and litigate her right to receive health care.

And so those are the stakes for us in Arizona and why we're really proud to stand with Laura and with other courageous officials across the country who say this is not the way to go as a country.

There's been, of course, a huge backlash at the polls in voting issues across the country since Dobbs was decided handed down by the Supreme Court.

And Arizona is a purple state.

So do you think that this the politics, American politics and how it's changed will influence your Supreme Court in its decision?

Bonnie, it's going to be hard to predict how the court will will rule here.

And I want to make clear that we're giving them the time and space to to make a discernment on on how they will rule.

But what I can say from someone who's out in the community is that it's very clear in Arizona that polls show 80 sometimes as high as 90% of Arizonans do not want to see reproductive health care criminalized.

But that being said, and until and if we we have that until, until and unless we have that protection, it's putting everyone from prosecutors like myself to law enforcement to doctors to lawyers in in in an unclear unfair situation where where they lack notice about what's what's lawful and what's not.

And again, we're talking about when every moment counts.

It is not uncommon that patients will come in through the emergency room in an absolutely dire situation.

And the last thing we want is for a doctor to instead of using their own expertise, their experience, their direct observation of their patient, and making that emergency decision to act.

They are forced to wait for legal to weigh in.

I went to law school and there's a saying, you know, not to decide is to decide, meaning delay is the same thing as not deciding a case in certain instances.

What is that delay setting up in terms of women who are pregnant with either like the Texas case, a fetus that is going not going to be born alive?

And what does the delay cause in terms of, you know, women's health?

Are women dying because they're not being able to get abortions and other impacts?

Tell me other impacts of this case.

And waiting a long time for a decision in Arizona and affecting women's health rights in Arizona.

I think it's important to note that in Arizona, currently abortion is legal.

Women can receive abortions up to 15 weeks, and after 15 weeks they can receive abortions for medical emergencies.

And so this is really important for folks to know that currently in Arizona, abortion is still legal.

And what we're trying to do in this case is ask the state Supreme Court to preserve that status quo that Arizonans have had for 50 years and not return us to 1864 when black people were 3/5 of a person under U.S. law and women could not vote.

And so that's what we're asking, is to preserve the status quo.

But I do think to Laura's point, even though that is the current state of the law, there is so much confusion, not just in Arizona, but across the country, in states where this litigation drags on about the fate of old state criminal abortion bans.

And that really compromises care for people who are in the middle of a pregnancy.

And so that's why we're asking the court to move as swiftly as possible and really clarify once and for all the state of Arizona law for everyone.

Tell me, either one of you how this case found itself at the center of the abortion debate in Arizona.

Well, it was a fascinating turn of events from the legal perspective.

We will recall all that the Dobbs decision, the opinion leaked.

Right.

There was a draft opinion and it leaked out, which did afford us some time for emergency legal analysis, realizing that it looked most certain that Roe would fall.

And what we found immediately was this stay of protection that existed in Pima County Superior Court from 1973, where my predecessor and where the attorney general at that time were fighting for the right to continue to criminalize and prosecute reproductive health care.

And because Roe versus Wade was making its way up to the Supreme Court, the Arizona courts eventually put in a stay of protection for a number of named physicians represented at the time by Planned Parenthood of Tucson, so named it saying that they needed clarity that Roe versus Wade could could could turn in favor of reproductive health care and safety.

And so those physicians should have a clear knowledge to go ahead and continue to provide care so that 1973 court order was still in place when then-Attorney General Brnovich immediately came into court arguing that because of the Dobbs decision and because Roe had fallen, the court should simply return all the way back to in 1864 near total ban.

You're talking about two different cases, but did two different things in terms of abortion law.

There was one in the Civil War era, 1864 the ban to completely and what happened in 1973, about 100 years later, 110 years later.

Well, going back to 1864, Arizona is not even yet a state.

Not even close.

And they adopted regulations as a territory which was a near total abortion ban.

We fast forward to 1973 when a group of physicians in Tucson went to court, represented at the time by then so-called Planned Parenthood of Tucson.

And they said, Judge, we are physicians, we are we are providing health care.

We are put in a position at times when it is appropriate and necessary to perform reproductive health care, to perform a court to perform an abortion.

And, Judge, there is a big case called Roe versus Wade making its way to the United States Supreme Court.

During this time, Judge gave us a protection, protect us from criminal prosecution of abortion in case the Roe versus Wade decision goes our way and says that what we are doing is, in fact, lawful, Give us that protection.

They won that argument in 1973, which provided a protection for reproductive health care statewide and was still in place when Dobbs was decided.

Returning the question to the states.

There's also been controversy over one of the judges who has been pulled off this case.

Tell us about that.

I want to be clear that that we we have made it very clear that we are allowing the court to engage in its own discernment about how to handle this, these legal arguments and how to reach their opinion.

There was a motion by some other party to have one of the justices recuse himself.

He initially said he would stay on the case, but in fact did eventually recuse himself under his own analysis.

Jill, do you have anything to add to that?

No.

I think one piece of context just to add for for listeners and I think this is something because Roe versus Wade was the law of the land for 50 years in America, that I think it's easy to forget that we've now gone back to the state of play in the 1970s and before, where now abortion is often a criminal justice issue.

And so that places prosecutors front and center of these debates now about abortion, which hasn't been true for 50 years.

And so I think it's just context to think about what we're potentially going back to in Arizona and what we've already gone back to in a number of states across the country where prosecutor is now have to make an impossible decision about whether health care is criminal.

And so this is this is the kind of case percolating in states across the country and that we had as a kind of criminal justice relevant litigation back in the 1970s.

People may not remember, but Roe versus Wade Wade was a county prosecutor because he was the person in charge of criminally enforcing abortion bans.

And so we're just now in a state of play where prosecutors are front and center for these debates, and there are dire consequences for people.

And Bonnie, if I if I may, Jill makes such a brilliant point there.

And as as an elected official, as a prosecutor, I should be worried about equal protection.

And this is what I mean by that.

First and foremost, I shouldn't be making health care decisions, period.

And whether I'm criminal, I'm filing criminal charges here or there, I shouldn't even be in this realm.

But I'm forced to be here now because of the Dobbs decision.

And when I say equal protection, I'm very concerned that in the state of Arizona, given the police chief and the sheriff and the mayor and my my statements during the last 14 months, reproductive health care remained available these last 14 months in southern Arizona.

But in northern Arizona, it's stopped on and off, out of very serious concern that prosecutors would, in fact, start filing criminal charges against health care providers.

And then what's more, those who can afford to do so can leave and safely go get the health care they desperately need in another state.

And those who can't afford it are trapped here.

These are the untenable and unacceptable consequences within a state and across the nation.

Now, Arizona, as a western state, western states were some of the first to grant women the right to vote and the right to run for office.

The first female member of the U.S. House of Representatives was from Montana or Wyoming.

I'm sorry, I forget exactly which state, but I remember passing her statue many times and in Statuary Hall in the on Capitol Hill, where when I used to cover the Congress, I would think that there would be a forward looking approach by Arizona voters in terms of freedom, the freedom to do with your body what you want to do with your body.

There are also they apply it in different ways, a majority of Arizonans also want the freedom to buy as many guns as they want, but they are the the Western ethic has been, Get your laws off my body.

Is that still the case?

Jill, could you start?

Yes, I think it's a really important point that these laws are not consistent with the will of voters in virtually any state, including in Arizona.

The vast majority of Arizonans don't want to criminalize abortion.

They may have varying personal opinions about the morality of support of abortion, but this is not a partisan issue.

This is a very strong majority issue for the majority of Arizonans and even the majority of Americans that criminalizing abortion is not a good stance.

That's why these laws are really so far out of step with the will of voters across the country and why we've seen every single time a direct ballot measure is put to voters since Dobbs has passed.

Every single time voters have voted for greater abortion protections, including Republicans.

So this is not a partisan issue.

This is an issue of liberty and bodily autonomy versus an extreme minority that has that has entrenched power in certain areas to the detriment of women's health.

With that, whichever way this this case is decided in Arizona, do you see it being appealed to the Supreme Court?

Well, I think certainly no matter what happens, we're going to be looking at all of our options for appeal, making sure that we're that we get the best outcome that we can, because public health is public safety and public safety is public health.

There's also a voter initiative drive in Arizona to try to get a constitutional reproductive health protection onto the ballot, or they're going to need an extraordinary number of signatures.

But it's but but I think it's going to show the will of the people.

Bonnie, you're absolutely correct.

In Arizona, people do not want the government in the bedroom between two private, consenting adults in Arizona.

People do not want the government in an emergency room interfering between a physician and a patient in crisis.

And the polls are are clear on that.

And critically, the Arizona state legislature, almost always dominated by the Republican Party, has weighed in on abortion in the last 50 years and provided safe reproductive health care up to 15 weeks.

And they said that again just months before the Dobbs decision.

Well, now that's constituted now.

Would that still be the case.

If if the Arizona Supreme Court rules in favor of the arguments before it, 15 weeks protection will, will continue on.

And that's our argument.

In agreement Jill?

Yeah, I think that's ah, that's our argument to the Arizona Supreme Court that the law is actually pretty straightforward here.

And what intervenors are trying to do is really ignore 50 years of legal precedent in Arizona and bring us back to the Civil War era.

And our argument is that's not how the Arizona state law works there.

The legislature has weighed in over the last 50 years many times, and the state Supreme Court should follow that precedent and keep the status quo of abortion care, at least up to 6 to 15 weeks.

Excuse me, with emergency care available after that.

And then hopefully the next year, the voters will have a chance to weigh in on even broader protections for abortion rights.

Jill, you mentioned earlier and I'd like to close out on this, that that all the state laws that have passed overwhelmingly in favor of abortion rights, Ohio and the and the elections, Ohio, most recently Kansas, etc., do you think I know that Laura can't talk about this, but do you believe that the judges on the Arizona Supreme Court will be influenced by public opinion?

And in the past, I'm not sure about this Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court.

But in the past, the court has been extremely sensitive.

Like Chief Justice Roberts does not want it to look like a bunch of political hacks, which is what they look like with the Dobbs decision.

So is there that same sentiment?

Will it be paid attention to by the justices of the Arizona Supreme Court?

Well, I think we can never be sure what influences individual justices is they're humans just like anyone else.

But I think what is good for our position and for the position of folks in favor of abortion rights is that we don't even need the justices to be influenced by public opinion here.

We only need them to be influenced by Arizona State law.

And so that's why we've argued to the Supreme Court that the law is actually pretty straightforward here, that abortion should remain legal up to 15 weeks in Arizona.

And we hope that's what they'll decide.

Thank you both for this very illuminating conversation.

And let's keep this conversation going on all our social media platforms and visit our website pbs.org- slash- to the contrary.

and whether you agree or think To the Contrary and whether you agree or think To the Contrary See you next week.

(MUSIC) Funding for To the contrary provided by the You're watching PBS.